Libertarian v RINO

When you see people who say they would vote for a RINO but never a libertarian it makes you wonder. What is the difference between a libertarian and a RINO that reasonable men could arrive at such a conclusion?

I created a handy table illustrating the differences between libertarians and RINOs on issues of the day and yesterday.

If we take just a few of these:

1. Most conservatives would like to see the end of the Drug War. We may disagree on terms. We all want to see an end to the destruction caused by drug use. Some of us think the Drug War causes massive problems by infringing on liberty while totally failing in the objective. Others think the specter of drug use justifies any governmental action to end it. The south felt the same way about protecting slavery and preventing uprisings. The conclusion, most conservatives would agree with libertarians, the War on Drugs is bad, but some think it is necessary.
2. Most conservatives would agree with the proposition that taxes are bad, they create a drag on economic activity and depending on how they are levied they can be amazingly unfair and arbitrary and unfortunately they are to some degree necessary. So I think a solid conservative position on taxes would be to say they should be as low as possible, collected at points that are efficient and unobtrusive and used only for the purpose of raising necessary revenue not as a means to influence behavior. The income tax is a horribly intrusive inefficient tax system. It creates a gargantuan drag on the economy and costs an enormous amount to enforce and comply with. It tramples rights, is arbitrary and is full of loopholes. It is heavily designed to influence behavior and now carries mandates requiring the purchase of services. A conservative position is emerging to end it and is shared with, strangely enough, libertarians.
3. A standing army. Again I would think that most conservatives would be happy to eliminate a standing army. If it could be done. But it can’t and so we see the real world collide with the libertarian ideal. Real world will mug you. It wins every time and therefore we must live according to its dictates. As Reagan said, “we cannot play innocents abroad in a world that is not innocent.”
4. Early on the founders debated the issues surrounding the idea that some things were so big only government could do them. At the time it was roads and bridges followed quickly by railroads. If we acknowledge on the one hand that there are things that only government can do and on the other hand that it doesn’t do even these things efficiently; we must conclude that the government should only do those things that it must do and leave everything else to the private sector.
   Space the final frontier. If there had been a North American Settlers Administration (NASA) we would still be east of the Ohio making minor incursions into Kentucky. Government involvement in space exploration may have been necessary early on for defense purposes but we have reached a point where bloated government spending and planning is more of a hindrance than a help to private sector involvement in space. Who in 1969 didn’t think humans would be living on the moon and perhaps Mars by now? People who knew how government works would have known and would have guessed the program would become vastly more expensive with steadily shrinking accomplishments driven by political considerations. AMTRAK is of course no different.

It seems to me most libertarian ideals are ones all people who love liberty would agree are good ideals. As practical conservatives we recognize that to a greater or lesser extent some libertarian ideals fail in the real world unless they are tempered with reality. Thus, we agree with most if not all libertarian ideals and the breakdown occurs when it comes to the real world application.

When we assume that most (pure) libertarians approach the issues with a desire to base their beliefs in principles the question becomes one of education. (Of course, they really want to “educate” you) They are seeking core truths and need only be properly educated in what those truths means. How the principles can be applied to the real world. Yes, there are some who only want to get high or get laid without being judged for their behavior.

Contrast this with RINOs. RINOs may already know the correct answer.  They just don’t care. You can’t educate don’t care.

Many RedStaters are former Democrats. What brought them over? Education. Either by the world or by somebody.  I assume further the switch was brought on by some principled stand on one or more issues and a realization the Democrat Party was only paying lip service to it. Party of the little guy for example.

So a libertarian is somebody who may be misguided, may be educable, but probably has principles. A RINO is somebody who may well know the right answer but will trade it for re-election or power in office. Our choice then, when we say, “I would never vote for that guy,” is; would we vote for the guy that we agree with on principle but not necessarily application or vote for the guy who will sell us out for personal reasons regardless of principle?

Most people seem to agree we need to supplement our conservative base in order to win elections. Some say we should use RINOs and some say libertarians. So far RINOs have been winning and during the prior century the result was massive growth in government. Massive inroads into our liberties. Massive taxation. A steady stream of laws designed to entrench the political class. Erosion of our religious rights by a government system that uses tax dollars to undermine our beliefs. A constant attack on our fiscal well-being and our financial privacy.

Imagine for a minute we could trade our RINO “base” for a libertarian base. Assume 25% of elected Republicans are RINOs and instead we would have 25% libertarians. What would it mean? We already know from Collins, Snowe, et al that RINOs have no principled reason to stand against nationalized healthcare. (Principled RINOs what am I saying?)  Libertarians on the other hand were side by side fighting with us to prevent ObamaCare.

RINOs have no problem with big government solutions if it brings votes; libertarians oppose big government even more than we do. What would it mean to trade a block that betrays us and our principles at every turn and bring in a group that mostly shares our principles and wants to leave us alone and be left alone? What would it mean if 25% of elected Republicans suddenly started voting consistently for smaller government?

Related articles by Zemanta

• Dumb Ox Bellowed: Remember In November (dumboxbellowed.blogtownhall.com)
• ClearCommentary.com: Obama & The Culture of Dependence (clearcommentary.blogtownhall.com)
• The ABCs of Repealing ObamaCare (redstate.com)
• American Revolution: Motion vs Action (patricksamuels.blogtownhall.com)